Trump Cannot Block Twitter Users: Idiocy in the Judiciary
Love Trump or hate him, this ruling is stupid. Below are a couple of summaries of the decision of a Federal Judge (appointed by Bill Clinton, of course) prohibiting Trump from blocking Twitter users on the basis that it violates their First Amendment rights.
(https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-23/trump-no-longer-allowed-ban-twitter-users-judge-rules)
(http://thehill.com/regulation/389021-judge-rules-trump-cant-block-users-on-twitter)
I have not had a chance to read the full 75 page decision but the rationale appears to be:
- Blocking someone on Twitter violates his/her freedom of speech; and
- Blocking someone on Twitter also is unconstitutional because Trump uses Twitter as a public forum.
O...k...
Let's take a quick look at the First Amendment:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Everyone understands that, right? There really is no ambiguity in the language. So let's break it down:
- The first part is not applicable as this case has nothing to do with religion;
- Trump is not abridging an individual's freedom of speech (or the press) by blocking someone on Twitter. It is not impossible to communicate with Trump because he blocks someone on Twitter. Practically, it is impossible for the average citizen to communicate with Trump because he is the President. Twitter is actually a way that makes it easier to communicate with government but it is not a constitutional right to demand a certain type of communication.
- The judge suggests that Trump should just be able to ignore the Twitter harassers and that this would be a way of avoiding a 1A violation. Fair point, I guess. But how does blocking greatly differ from ignoring in any material way? Is the First Amendment actually meant to protect someone's right to make an obnoxious reply to someone else's Tweet? I'm pretty sure the Framers had something else in mind. By this logic, if someone's preferred method of communicating with Trump is to stand beside his seat at the dinner table and scream in his ear while he tries to eat, then open the White House gates! There will be a line around the corner for this spectacle! At least he can just ignore the screaming.
- Anyone with much intelligence at all would realize that Trump has never once used Twitter entirely to the exclusion of other avenues of communication on official business. Also, people will usually see his most significant posts through news stories that appear through other accessible mediums like televisions, website and print media. It's not as if anyone is required to communicate only by Twitter.
- If you want to see someone's Tweets, in most cases, all you have to do is perform a Google search for the person's Twitter account in your browser and you can read their Tweets. One can read the President's Tweets anytime without being logged into Twitter. I just double checked on a computer where I do not access Twitter and they Tweets showed up in my web search.
- Last but not least, Trump's blocking habits certainly have not stopped anyone from petitioning the government for redress of grievances. That's what just happened here! Oh the irony.
We can all imagine - without even looking - the rich level of discourse that the deranged Trump haters provide in the comments to his Tweets. Thank goodness that none of them will ever miss out on this opportunity again. At least we know Twitter will do the right thing regarding the ones that threaten his wife and children. Right, Twitter...?
I do not like Trump. As an anarchist, I do not like the government at all, reject its claimed authority, and oppose every overreach it makes.
Freedom of association is a natural right. The First Amendment partially acknowledges and claims to protect this right. The right to choose with whom one associates necessarily also includes the right to decline to associate with others as well. It violates no right to decline to associate. There cannot rationally be a right to impose one's self upon others. However, that is exactly what Trump and every other government official in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches do themselves as a necessary part of governing.
So while I agree that Trump has every right to use the "block" feature as an extension of his right to freedom of association, I can't find any sympathy for him when he is faced with a tiny aspect of the very political injustice he embodies as a politician. My only complaint is the precedent it sets for everyone else.
This is an excellent point you make in your comment. I hope I did not suggest we need to sympathize with Trump. I believe he would gladly play the other side of the equation if the tables were turned. I just have an issue with compelled association and a bigger issue with stupid judicial decisions as judges are in theory there to help us protect our freedoms! Thanks for the comment and upvote.
No, you didn't seem to suggest that Trump needed sympathy. This just strikes me as another example of judicial overreach in direct contradiction to written law and common sense natural law alike.
Then Trump should off all your disliked POTUS be the most liked. He has done more to remove regulations from Government than any other president in history. Thus shrinking Govt reach into everyone's life. As an anarchist, this one act alone of Trumps should make you a cheerleader. Frankly I don't understand how anyone that is an anarchist can hold Trump in bad light.
He has done more damage to the status quo and upset the deep state elitist more than anyone in ANY government around the world. Your dislike for this man is held then in question. Trump stated in his inaugural address he was giving the govt back to the people. If you ask me, one who looks at the actual facts, he has so far mostly done this.
...wut?
Trump is a nationalist, a corporatist, and a warmonger. His positions are antithetical to market anarchism. Any superficial similarities to actual liberty in any of his positions are accidental and unintentional.
Ok, maybe I don't quite understand your position. Trump does seem to have accomplished some deregulation and has lowered some taxes. These would seem to be steps in the right direction but are you saying that these changes are more beneficial to corporations? If so, then I suppose that is not really as helpful to individual freedom as people would have you believe. I hope he's not a warmonger but then again, he could have withdrawn some troops form foreign lands by now and not raised military spending, so I guess he might not be the worst warmonger of all but he isn't exactly getting an A+ grade in non-interventionism. Fair points. I guess I do still fall into that party politics trap sometimes of thinking someone is good because he/she is better than the alternative.
I'd like to see evidence of actual deregulation. "Deregulation" in practice always seems to really mean removing one regulation on a crony business and replacing it with two new ones on the crony's upstart competitors. The net burden of regulation always increases.
I fully understand the partisan trap.I grew up in a conservative family and became aware of politics during the Clinton administration. I still generally agree with the broad Republican arguments against the majority of Clinton's policies. However, during the Bush years, I became aware of the deep philosophical flaws and rational inconsistencies of the Republicans too.
Now, I strive to use a standard of individual rights and liberty regardless of partisan special pleading. It is this drive for individual liberty by universal standards that apply to all people regardless of the titles they claim that made me an anarchist.
Of course, the commies say I'm not a TWOO ANARCHIST because I support private property and free markets instead of embracing their own irrational authoritarianism.
To put it in the most blunt form possible, I support the right of married gay Mexicans to grow marijuana and defend their farm with machine guns. All without any registration, licenses or taxes. They'd be better neighbors than puritanical partisan control freaks.
Thanks. This is also a great comment. I do acknowledge that Trump has done more than the other recent presidents to put an end to some of the nastier parts of government. I do think he has a bit of a tendency to support decisions that go his way, regardless of principle but he has done some good things. I still think that the government needs to continue to have its role curtailed so that a greater portion of the population can actually experience freedom. Hopefully, Trump will continue to take steps in the right direction. It's so great to interact with people who actually want to have these conversations. Much appreciated!
tram is a dictatorial man in a democratic dress does not have the right to withhold the users. This is a kind of beating in their rights
If he can not bear the comments hostile to him if they are right and he is wrong
Many of Trump's speeches under hatred and violence, an aggressive character unkind
He created a big problem within the American decision board and among the elites
All his interlocutors in the election campaign are nothing but ink on paper
In belief
Congratulations @cwparkes! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
To support your work, I also upvoted your post!
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP